So are we talking a law, or what a company should do? Because the bakery and Hobby Lobby were compelled by force of law, whereas, so far, opponents have mostly objected to Twitter's actions--not called for a law. I think everyone has a right to object to a company's actions and/or stance, but bringing the power of law is a whole different level.
I think it's wrong for Twitter to silence most speech, and I will condemn them for doing so. However, I do NOT support any law which would compel them to remove or leave speech up on their site.
Also, the definition of hate speech provided is pure rubbish: "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits."
If you think my religion is rubbish, you have every right to tell me so, whether it offends me or not. It doesn't mean you hate me--it means you think my religion is rubbish. My being offended should not be a barrier on YOUR right to speak your mind. This redefinition of hate and "hate speech" in modern society is very harmful; it has the potential to destroy our society. And Canada just passed a bill (C-16) putting basically this definition of "hate speech" into law.